Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65088
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
M/s.The Cake World Pastry Hub – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) – Respondent
W.P.No.30154 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Thickamber Chandrasekar
For the Respondents: Ms.K.Vasanthamala, GA
Effective notice and opportunity to be heard are essential rights under the GST Act, with mere procedural compliance deemed inadequate.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorari filed to challenge the assessment order - Petitioner failed to file reply due to consultant unavailability - No personal hearing provided before order - Court remands matter for reconsideration on payment of disputed tax amount - Right to be heard emphasized. (Paras 3, 8, 12)
(B) GST Act - Effective service of notices - Uploading on the GST Portal deemed adequate but should explore additional service modes if no response - Merely fulfilling formalities criticized. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order passed without a personal hearing, stating inability to access the GST portal due to a consultant's unavailability, leading to a lack of notice response before the order was issued.
Findings of Court:
The court emphasized the importance of providing opportunities for personal hearing and directed remittance of the matter to the respondent for a fresh consideration following the payment of part of the disputed tax amount.
Issues: Whether the respondent provided adequate opportunity for personal hearing and whether service of notice through GST Portal was sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that effective notice and opportunity to be heard are fundamental rights under the GST Act, criticizing merely procedural compliance without actual communication.
Result: The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. lack of notice response due to consultant issue. (Para 3 , 10) |
| 2. petitioner offered to pay part of disputed tax. (Para 5) |
| 3. no personal hearing provided; need for effective notice. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court remands the case for fresh consideration. (Para 12) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the respondent.
2. Ms.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent in the GST common portal. The GST matters were handled by an erstwhile consultant, who has provided his mobile number and e-mail id as credentials to log in the GST portal. Since the said consultant was out of reach from the petitioner, petitioner was unable to login to their GST Account, due to which, being unaware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay
25% of the disputed tax amount, to the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had uploaded the notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. Further, he has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, he requested this Court to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 25%
of the disputed tax amount as agreed by the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
7. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.
8. No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.
9. Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169 (1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. Therefore,
